MILWAUKEE - After being laid off from her job as an events planner at an upscale resort, Jo Ann Bauer struggled financially. She worked at several lower-paying jobs, relocated to a new city and even declared bankruptcy.

Then in December, she finally accepted her parents' invitation to move into their home _ at age 52. "I'm back living in the bedroom that I grew up in," she said.

Taking shelter with parents isn't uncommon for young people in their 20s, especially when the job market is poor. But now the slumping economy and the credit crunch are forcing some children to do so later in life _ even in middle age.

Financial planners report receiving many calls from parents seeking advice about taking in their grown children following divorces and layoffs.

Kim Foss Erickson, a financial planner in Roseville, Calif., north of Sacramento, said she has never seen older children, even those in their 50s, depending so much on their parents as in the last six months.

"This is not like, 'OK, my son just graduated from college and needs to move back in' type of thing," she said. "These are 40- and 50-year-old children of my clients that they're helping out."

Parents "jeopardize their financial freedom by continuing to subsidize their children," said Karin Maloney Stifler, a financial planner in Hudson, Ohio, and a board member of the Financial Planning Association. "We have a hard time saying no as a culture to our children, and they keep asking for more."

Bauer's parents won't take rent money or let her help much with groceries. She's trying to save several hundred dollars a month for a house while working as a meetings coordinator.

Bauer would prefer to live on her own, but without her parents' help would "probably be renting again and trying to stick minimal money in the bank," she said.

Shirley Smith, 80, said she and her husband didn't hesitate when they invited Bauer to return to their home in Eden, Wis. Buying groceries for another person isn't stretching her budget too much, she said.

"I've got three kids and any of them can come home if they want," she said.

But plenty of well-meaning parents must delay retirement or scale back their dreams because they have to help their children, Stifler said.

Some of Erickson's clients are giving as much as $50,000 at a time to their kids, many of whom have overextended themselves with big houses or lavish lifestyles. And the sliding economy might threaten their jobs.

Parents feel guilty if they don't offer help, but she warns them to be careful with their savings.

"I almost have to act like a financial therapist if you will," she said. "'Here is the line I'm drawing for you. That's fine. You can do up to this point, but at this point, now you're starting to erode your own wealth.'"

Anna Maggiore, 27, lost her job as a publicist in Los Angeles about three years ago and moved into her parents' house in Los Alamos, N.M.

She tried to find jobs, but nothing stuck, so she enrolled full-time at the College of Santa Fe to finish her bachelor's degree in business.

She figures her parents spend about $1,000 a month on her, including a car payment, car and health insurance, school and other costs. Her father is a retired nuclear physicist and her mother, a guidance counselor, will retire this spring. Now Maggiore is looking for work so she can supplement their income.

"It's kind of hitting me finally that I need to get out there and find a job," she said. "Even if it's just part-time just to help out however I can."

A new survey by the retiree-advocacy group AARP found that one-fourth of Generation Xers, those 28 to 39 years old, receive financial help from family and friends.

The online survey of nearly 1,800 people ages 19 to 39 also found 57 percent believed they were "financially independent." But in a separate question, 33 percent said they received financial support from family and friends.

Bauer was caught by surprise when her job at a resort in Kohler, Wis., was cut four years ago, one year after she got divorced. The single mother bounced around to several lesser-paying jobs, declared bankruptcy and even moved 60 miles south to Milwaukee.

Her daughter, now 12, moved in with Bauer's ex-husband near her hometown.

Bauer decided to move to be closer to her and in December she found a job with the Experimental Aircraft Association in nearby Oshkosh. She tried to buy a house but needed 5 percent down. She only had 2 percent. She's now saving for a down payment and hopes to have it as early as June.

Bauer said she gets along well with her parents and knows she'll never get to spend so much time with them again. But it hurts her ego to live at home.

"I've had people say to me, 'Oh God, I could never do that,'" she said. "But you take humble steps in order to move forward."

My parents are 87 and 85, and they have more money in the bank than any of their 5 children, and a home that is paid for. I have one sibling living with them already. That’s the difference between growing up in the Depression years and growing up in the 50s and 60s. It’s our own fault for spending it all as we made it, and not saving. A lot of us Baby Boomers are working like hell now to catch up, and that is one reason why consumer spending is down.

6
posted on 03/22/2008 8:25:34 AM PDT
by Dems_R_Losers
(Waiting for 2012 to vote for an actual Republican)

I love what that idiot days, “ parents sacrifice their financial freedom for their kids”. That is what being family is all about. I would never turn away family in a bad situation. Life is not about how much you have, but how much you give. I truly feel sorry for those that think otherwise.

Maybe she could move in a house with about fifteen other people. They could use the bedrooms in shifts. Getting paid under the table at less than minimum wage would help also. Medicine of course would be free courtesy of the local emergency room. Always somebody ready to employ those willing to work for less. Real hard to compete with someone willing to live this way for a job that doesn’t even pay a living wage.

There is no question that a lot of us could have saved more; but a lot of us also had to pay off student loans when we started out, and a lot of us have had much less stable careers than our parents had. I have had 10 jobs in 25 years, with three long stretches of unemployment that ate up my savings and even sent me into debt.

10
posted on 03/22/2008 8:29:59 AM PDT
by Dems_R_Losers
(Waiting for 2012 to vote for an actual Republican)

I would never turn away family in a bad situation. Life is not about how much you have, but how much you give. I truly feel sorry for those that think otherwise.

I understand that sentiment. But doesn't there come a point when a person actually does more harm than good by continually supporting a child who has made the same mistakes over and over? When mom & dad are gone, who will the woman in the article turn to? And I know each case is going to be different, but based on what we know from the article - is this woman ever going to learn how to save and live within her means if she can always count on someone giving her more money?

11
posted on 03/22/2008 8:32:51 AM PDT
by AD from SpringBay
(We deserve the government we allow.)

I'm not seeing this as much different than the traditional family model for thousands of years...It's only in modern American society where we've experienced the wealth to expand beyond those family ties.

She figures her parents spend about $1,000 a month on her, including a car payment, car and health insurance, school and other costs. Her father is a retired nuclear physicist and her mother, a guidance counselor, will retire this spring. Now Maggiore is looking for work so she can supplement their income.

Oops.

15
posted on 03/22/2008 8:34:54 AM PDT
by IllumiNaughtyByNature
(Senator McCain, what did GWB promise you back in 2000? And you believed him? BWAHAAAAA!)

Some folks have it harder than others. One of the things that bothers me is the headline here: "Weak economy". In other words: "Bush's fault".

If someone says "a lot of us could have saved more" then I see evidence that someone is taking a degree of personal responsibility and I can applaud that. But I think the media would prefer to push its usual agenda.

"That is what being family is all about. I would never turn away family in a bad situation. Life is not about how much you have, but how much you give. I truly feel sorry for those that think otherwise.

I have close friends who thought as you do. They're now 85 years old with their daughter, son in law and two grandchildren living with them. Not because of a bad economy (they moved in during the boom years) but because their daughter refuses to live a lifestyle any lower than what she had become accustomed to before she was married.

It's been four years now, with no sign that they'll ever decide to be out on their own. They don't love them any less, they just want them out.

The most destructive thing you can do for the people you love is that which they can and should do for themselves.

Prior Post: I would never turn away family in a bad situation. Life is not about how much you have, but how much you give. I truly feel sorry for those that think otherwise.

Your response: I understand that sentiment. But doesn’t there come a point when a person actually does more harm than good by continually supporting a child who has made the same mistakes over and over? When mom & dad are gone, who will the woman in the article turn to? And I know each case is going to be different, but based on what we know from the article - is this woman ever going to learn how to save and live within her means if she can always count on someone giving her more money?
***

Well said. The problem is not that parents are not willing to help children in need, it is that, in my opinion, children know this, and are willing to exploit it rather than doing what is necessary to survive. It is private welfare, and it is no less corrosive of the human spirit than public welfare. At a minimum the returning child should pay rent and contribute groceries and utilities, and parents should insist on this.

Not too far off the subject is a man, weighing some astronomical amount like 800 pounds, whose mother cares for and feeds him to the extent that he doesn’t have to (and now cannot) get out of bed. Our coddling of children on all fronts has led to an entitlement mentality that is poisonous. What happens when these parents die, unless a substantial inheritance is left to these children? One thing is sure, they have not learned to live life and earn their way as God (or nature, if you have no faith) intended. That is good for no one. God help us if these children have children in turn.

I guess it depends on the circumstances. Until the last generation or two, extended families were common and a good thing, if everyone pulled their weight. This is the negative side but I’m sure there are many parents and grown kids with kids living together comfortably.

Those things you’ve mentioned are obviously factors, but I also think that my generation (I’m 57) has had a greater degree of instability in many way - mostly self-inflicted. Broken marriages account for a lot of it. We made foolish choices, either in the ones we married or in getting divorced later. I know I have had untold thousands go out in not only child support, but also in providing additional help to my 2 ex-wives over the years. Many of us are maintaining multiple households and money is being eaten up rapidly. Our parents generation worked through things, remained stable and reaped the benefit of that. Too many of us have failed to do that. This whole phenomenon is almost an economic manifestation of the “cultural shift” which began 40 some years ago. Not all of my generation fell for it, but far too many of us did and we’re suffering for it. The hard part is watching our kids suffer for it, though.

A lot of us Baby Boomers are working like hell now to catch up, and that is one reason why consumer spending is down.

I know lots of Gen Xers who are at least somewhat dependent on parents for help. I have been from time to time, much to my own shame.

I have decided to just pay my bills, buy my gas, and not really buy anything else except food. Our GDP is 70 percent consumer spending. Not sure how much of that is discretionary, but if others are like me, this nation is in for a financial wakeup call.

You hit the nail right on the head! I keep looking around at the people who are divorced, and one or the other is usually in dire circumstances, even though they have jobs. Everyone suffers; the children, the adults, and even the grandparents!

Maybe she could move in a house with about fifteen other people. They could use the bedrooms in shifts. Getting paid under the table at less than minimum wage would help also. Medicine of course would be free courtesy of the local emergency room. Always somebody ready to employ those willing to work for less. Real hard to compete with someone willing to live this way for a job that doesnt even pay a living wage.”

The problem is not that parents are not willing to help children in need, it is that, in my opinion, children know this, and are willing to exploit it rather than doing what is necessary to survive. It is private welfare, “”

I have friends and neighbors who are in the midst of this kind of mess, and I cannot get thru to them that when the money is thinned beyond repair, the kids will leave them high and dry. I don’t hold out a speck of hope that these same kids will take care of their parents when things get tougher.

Our coddling of children on all fronts has led to an entitlement mentality that is poisonous. “

Reminds me of the time I asked my Dad to grease my 52 Chevy sedan. He guided me onto the lift, went to a master book, opened it to the correct page and said you have 17 (?) zerk fittings to find and grease. If you need further help, come get me....and he left me to figure it out. I found them all. To this day, I still change my own oil in both vehicles....and I am now 68 and female.

A word of caution: giving too much, especially money, can have the unintended consequence of weakening people. The best gift you can give is to teach your children to think for themselves and develop self reliance. That said, we all occasionally need a helping hand.

Plus the government taxed your guts out, and the Carter Administration's policies caused inflation to go wild for a time, and everything government does adds cost to your life without much benefit - I could go on, but you get the point.

Things were different when we graduated from HS or College.
There was a draft to face..so you couldn’t mess around doing nothing. Responsibility to face up to caused kids to grow up quicker.
Tuition was lower before the big lending programs to “help”.
Summer jobs paid good money before illegals.
Now kids graduate from college with debt,,have never really had a real job and can mess around while they “find themselves”. There would be a lot higher pay and mess unemployment and less govt spending if all the illegals were gone. If the Reagan democrats figure this out..look out RATS.

I noticed in the article that a number of the people who lost their jobs had jobs as planners, publicists, etc. I would like them to know that close to my home is a chicken-processing plant where they are happily taking applications for new employees. The same area has a large furniture factory that frequently advertises for workers.

It's not pleasant losing a job, I've been there, but there are jobs that one can "lower" themselves to. Not everyone is cut out to be a planner.

So very true. In fact in the book "The Millionaire Next Door" by two authors whose names I can't remember it was proved that the worst thing wealthy parents can do for their children is to lavish unconditional money on them. The wealthy parents who made their children work for their money had the most self-sufficient kids.

The opposite was true for the parents who doted on their kids, gave them gobs of money from an early age, set up their businesses, and made sure they didn't fail. The children of the latter never learned how to be self-sufficient. Many ended hoping for their wealthy parents to die early to get their money to squander as fast as they could spend it.

I noticed in the article that a number of the people who lost their jobs had jobs as planners, publicists

Something is odd about that. One would think that lots of experience would be required in order to qualify as a planner or publicist. After all, you're advising other people how to do things. If that were the case, losing your job shouldn't be much of a problem since you could fall back on your wealth of experience and related skills to do something else. Maybe they were just unwilling to give up the glamour factor associated with the old job.

It is among the greatest economic catastophes and delusions we’ve ever created. “No-Fault” divorce laws are second only to abortion-on-demand rulings in our ongoing cultural meltdown. Aside from the obvious moral decay, we have accompanying economic and financial consequences which few are willing to acknowledge. Part of the reason we won’t do anything about illegals is that many are paying in to Social Security through withholding (even if it’s on a phony number) and it’s helping to replace the contributions of 40 million Americans who weren’t allowed to be born because of Roe v. Wade.

Ashley Furniture of Arcadia, Wisconsin. The chicken processing plant is just down the road. Guess who works at the chicken processing plant? Let’s just say that the town of Arcadia which previously had a very large contingent of Poles now has a growing population of people who speak a different language. Hint: se habla espanol? And who aren’t afraid to take the nasty jobs the locals won’t.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.